Last Call Review of draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02
review-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02-tsvart-lc-touch-2019-12-02-00

Request Review of draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Last Call Review
Team Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2019-12-16
Requested 2019-11-18
Authors Mark Nottingham
Draft last updated 2019-12-02
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Qin Wu (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -02 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Donald Eastlake (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -02 by Joseph Touch (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joseph Touch
State Completed
Review review-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02-tsvart-lc-touch-2019-12-02
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/f1mhliuYmuq-4iSjual2-uJPro8
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 03)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2019-12-02

Review
review-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02-tsvart-lc-touch-2019-12-02

This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.

There are no transport issues in this document.

The document would benefit from an explanation as to the reason for the need for this revision and a summary of the differences with the version it replaces, even if only in an appendix.

There is one significant issue related to this document that needs to be addressed before it can proceed. There is an outstanding errata from RFC7320 that remains unresolved. The BCP index, markings in the datatracker for these RFCs, and citations in this document are not aligned; that should be corrected (in all three places) so the appropriate citation in this document does not further propagate the error.